mailing list archives
Re: DNS Changer items
From: TJ <trejrco () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:36:27 -0400
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org> wrote:
In a message written on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:46:52AM +0100, Stephen
From the article:
] The address space was quarantined for six weeks before being returned to
] the RIPE NCC's available pool of IPv4 address space. It was then
] randomly reallocated to a new resource holder according to normal
] allocation procedures.
] As the RIPE NCC nears IPv4 exhaustion, it will reduce the quarantine
] period of returned address space accordingly to ensure that there is no
] more IPv4 address space available before the last /8 is reached. The
] RIPE NCC recognises that this shortened quarantine could lead to
] routability problems and offers its members assistance to reduce this.
While I understand that in the face of IPv4 exhaustion long quarantine
periods are probably no longer a good idea, I think 6 weeks is
shockingly short. I also think to blanket apply the quarantine is
a little short sighted, there are cases that need a longer cooling
off period, and this may be one of them.
I think the RIPE membership, and indeed the policy making bodies
of all RIR's should look at their re-allocation policies with this
case in mind and see if a corner case like this doesn't present a
Correct me if I am wrong, but with RIPE's pool nearing exhaustion (in as
little as 3 weeks, depending upon who you ask and how you count) isn't this
sort of a moot point? I suppose this block could have been moved to the
back of the list instead of randomly re-allocated, but would a few more
weeks really have helped?
Re: DNS Changer items Leo Bicknell (Aug 15)
Re: DNS Changer items TJ (Aug 15)